NVIDIA’s New Driver Tips 512MB Graphics Cards

[zippyjuan]

NVIDIA’s New Driver Tips 512MB Graphics Cards

Graphics Cards with Large Frame-Buffers May be Around the Corner
by Anton Shilov
11/09/2004 | 11:08 PM

NVIDIA’s driver for graphics processing units released hours ago supports graphics cards with 512MB frame-buffer, it transpired. While currently there are no graphics cards with that lot of memory onboard, they are likely to be available in future and it may appear that in not too-distant-future.

ForceWare 66.93 drivers released on the 9th of November, 2004, correct certain bugs, are designed to improve performance in 3D applications and also enable NVIDIA’s programmable video processor. Additionally, the new drivers contain a number of enhancements, such as support for GeForce 6600, GeForce 6600 GT, and GeForce 6200, SLI multi-GPU configurations, HDTV use over DVI connectors, advanced DVI timing on all GeForce 6 series GPUs, 512 MB frame buffer GPUs and some more capabilities.

Currently there are no graphics cards with 512MB frame-buffer aimed at consumers. Only professional graphics cards, such as certain versions of NVIDIA Quadro, sport 512MB frame-buffer. It is not clear whether it is enough cost-effective for graphics chips designers to vow for 512MB graphics cards, as GDDR3 memory currently used on high-end graphics products is pretty expensive.

NVIDIA’s new ForceWare drivers does not support any new GPUs, such as code-named NV50, NV47 and NV48. Therefore, upcoming 512MB graphics cards may be based on current generation of graphics processing units.

Leading developers of graphics processors, such as NVIDIA Corp. and ATI Technologies, usually tend to double the amount of on-board memory on high-end graphics products every 12 to 18 months. More on-board memory allows graphics cards to store more textures near the graphics chip, which in some cases improves performance, as the processor does not have to pump the data it needs from system memory via AGP or PCI Express bus. However, the first generation of graphics cards that feature doubled amount of memory compared to predecessors usually do not make much use of this advantage because contemporary games are developed with lower amount of graphics memory in mind, while the future titles require visual processing units with higher computing power.

The first graphics cards with 256MB of memory for consumers were released in mid-2003 along with the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra and RADEON 9800 PRO 256MB products. Currently even entry-level offerings feature 256MB of relatively slow memory. Besides technology-related reasons to put more memory onboard, there is a marketing reason for that – a lot of end-users tend to get graphics card with more graphics random access memory hoping to get higher speed.

NVIDIA Corp. officials did not comment on the story. X-bit labs polled representatives for NVIDIA, NVIDIA’s add-in-card partners, ATI Technologies and ATI’s add-in-card partners. While the majority declined to comment, some of ATI’s partners said 512MB boards would emerge only when it is economically feasible to make such products.

-------------------------------------------------------

I was unsure about putting this in Hardware (hints about newer video cards) or Software (new NVidea Driver Release). NVidea did indicate that there would probably be a 526mb version of the 6800 when the announced the release of that card a while back. ATI seems a bit less willing to put the latest-possible hardware on its cards, prefering to wait until there is more demand for it and the technology improved (and cheaper to manufacture) like it has on Pixel Shader 3.0.

[LegendKiller]

I think that if anything this will be a gimick. It has only been more recently with D3 or HL2 that we have finally hit a bottleneck in regards to memory. Even those 2 games might not need 512MB. It will be sad to see them start slapping 512 onto cards when they really should be concentrating on more efficient use of what they do have and higher clock speeds, while keeping card prices lower.

Overall, marketing ploy.


LK

[bachviet]

I can't afford a GF 6800 so this is way out of my price range for sure.

[gazou]

the sli geforce 6800 gives 85 % more fps that on a single geforce 6800( on a doom3 benchmark )... so ill just buy a 9800xt for the moment and wait till the Sli is around 400$

[DarkFury]

Heh...

This will spawn the 133t attitude of... "I've got more memory in my video card than you have in your whole computer". :hihi: :heh:

[LegendKiller]

Hmmm, interesting. You guys should check out the AGP vs PCIe comparisons going on around the net with the release of the 6600 GT AGP. The Techreport is showing that AGP actually beats PCIe at 128MB frame buffer levels. This leads them to the conclusion that PCIe has a larger memory footprint.

So, 512MB might not be the marketing ploy I initially thought...


LK

[johnnymk]

I was wondering what made the Quadro boards so expensive. It must be the size and type of memory.
A friend of mine does video editing of weddings. He uses Avid XPress, a fairly expensive program. One of the requirements for DVD editing for that program is the Quadro board, which is quite expensive. The cheapest I have seen it on EBay is $350-$400 used.

[bachviet]

Heh...

This will spawn the 133t attitude of... "I've got more memory in my video card than you have in your whole computer". :hihi: :heh:
Hye don't talk crap about my computer. :dead:

[Cantacuzene]

I was wondering what made the Quadro boards so expensive. It must be the size and type of memory.
A friend of mine does video editing of weddings. He uses Avid XPress, a fairly expensive program. One of the requirements for DVD editing for that program is the Quadro board, which is quite expensive. The cheapest I have seen it on EBay is $350-$400 used.

Actually, there is not much different at all between a Quadro and a Ge-Force. Many times a ge-force can be bios flashed to be a quadro. I know the ti4600 could be flashed to a Quadro. Voila, you just saved hundreds of dollars. Drawback being Quadro are meant to render and not to play games so you better have a good reason for flashing.

[Jeffbx]

One of the "benefits" of the Quadro & FireGL cards is that they're 'certified' to run on certain platforms. AutoCAD, Catia, Unigraphics & other big players 'certify' these cards so they're guaranteed compatible with their products. We run a lot of these packages & I can say with a fair amount of certainty that a cheaper Radeon or nForce will run circles around the Quadro or FireGL cards when comparing cost to performance.

However, if you have a problem with your graphics package, the first thing that support will ask you is whether you're using certified hardware!

[johnnymk]

One of the "benefits" of the Quadro & FireGL cards is that they're 'certified' to run on certain platforms. AutoCAD, Catia, Unigraphics & other big players 'certify' these cards so they're guaranteed compatible with their products. We run a lot of these packages & I can say with a fair amount of certainty that a cheaper Radeon or nForce will run circles around the Quadro or FireGL cards when comparing cost to performance.

However, if you have a problem with your graphics package, the first thing that support will ask you is whether you're using certified hardware!

So taking a gamble on a $100 board may not be a bad idea(for Avid XPress) ?

[Jeffbx]

Not at all! I do that now & then here at work - for example, nVidia hasn't released any 64-bit Windows drivers for the FireGL line, but they have for the Radeons. I grabbed a Radeon x700, which has twice the memory & costs the same as the FireGL V3100 I replaced. Popped it in there & it works like a champ.